In Political Season, 'Social Issue' Add-Ons Bulk Up E.S.E.A.

When language restricting the availability of "dial-a-porn"
telephone services threatened passage of the major K-12 education bill
in 1988, Rep. Augustus F. Hawkins, D-Calif., declared: "This is a
vicious system of legislating."

Mr. Hawkins, who retired in 1990, might have been even more
displeased with the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which was larded with multiple "social issue"
amendments.

Against the backdrop of a fierce campaign season, members of
Congress added language to the bill relating to gun possession in
schools, school prayer, condom distribution, and sex education.

Such issues took up more than half the time lawmakers spent in a
weeklong House-Senate conference and threatened to derail the bill,
which was signed by President Clinton last week. (See related story.)

While they are associated with schools and children, the amendments
have little to do with the substance of the legislation, critics
say.

However, when popular bills are held up until the end of a session,
members often use them to score political points back home--or hold
them hostage to secure passage of an unrelated provision.

"It seemed at times all we heard from were those politicians that
neatly crafted their small provisions into this 900-page bill, and we
heard it from both sides" of the aisle, said Arnold F. Fege, the
director of government relations for the National PTA.

And while the 1988 dial-a-porn provision, which was sponsored by
Sen. Jesse A. Helms, R-N.C., was subsequently found unconstitutional by
the U.S. Supreme Court, some of this year's amendments may have
consequences for schools.

Social Amendments

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was the sponsor of a "zero
tolerance" policy for youngsters who bring guns to school, attaching a
provision to the Senate version of the E.S.E.A. bill that would deny
federal money to districts that do not expel such students for one
year. Ms. Feinstein, who is facing a tough re-election fight, has
touted the measure in her television ads.

In conference, a fellow California Democrat, Rep. George
Miller--usually among the House's most liberal members--was the gun
provision's chief cheerleader. The conference chairmen retained the
amendment, even though they and other panel members opposed it.

Supporters have "the votes in the Senate," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,
D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee, said at the conference. "With all due respect, we're locked
into it."

Especially during a campaign season, members are reluctant to
publicly vote against amendments that represent hot-button issues for
some voters. Therefore, it is typical for Congressional leaders to
quietly drop such language in conference, or to modify it if their
political calculus indicates the bill will not pass without it.

In this case, conferees added language allowing school
administrators to "modify" the expulsion policy on a case-by-case
basis.

The practical effect is to require states to pass laws mandating a
one-year-expulsion policy, and to make districts state in their
applications for E.S.E.A. money that they have such policies--although
they may waive the rules.

Nonetheless, Rep. Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania, the House Education
and Labor Committee's ranking Republican, argued vehemently that the
provision usurps local authority and said it helped solidify his vote
against HR 6.

Prayer and Sex Education

Senator Helms, a frequent proponent of social-issue riders, has
sought to add prayer language to education bills for years. This year,
he was partially successful.

The Senate had added his language--banning federal funding for
districts that do not allow "constitutionally protected" prayer in
schools--to its E.S.E.A. bill. While it was not in the House bill, a
whopping majority of House Democrats urged the conferees to retain it.
(See Education Week, Sept. 28, 1994.)

But the conferees instead adopted a compromise, drafted by Sen.
Nancy Landon Kassebaum, R-Kan., that bans aid to schools that defy
court orders on prayer.

Observers noted that schools would be unlikely to defy such an
order, and this language does not require school officials to determine
what kind of prayer is constitutional, as critics said the Helms
language would.

However, a motion on the House floor to demand restoration of the
Helms language threatened to sink the bill. It took some muscle from
the Clinton Administration and Congressional leaders to defeat the
motion.

Conferees were also forced to come up with compromise language on
sex education.

The House bill would have required school districts that use
E.S.E.A. dollars for sex education to stress abstinence. They would
also have been prevented from using such money "to carry out a program
or activity that has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or
supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle
alternative."

A 'Worrisome' Trend?

This language generated heated debate, during which Rep. Robert K.
Dornan, R-Calif., asked Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Wis., whether or not he
was "in the closet." Mr. Gunderson, who opposed the provision, has
tacitly acknowledged that he is gay.

Conferees--who included Mr. Gunderson--adopted alternative language
barring schools from using E.S.E.A. money to "promote or encourage
sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual," or to "operate a
program of condom distribution in schools."

While most E.S.E.A. money is narrowly categorized, funds from the
Chapter 2 block grant can be spent on almost anything. In addition,
schools that receive impact aid--intended to compensate them for taxes
lost due to the presence of federal property--could be asked to prove
that the aid did not pay for prohibited programs.

Lobbyists, Administration officials, and Congressional aides say the
campaign season, as well as the public prominence of some of these
social issues, prompts members of Congress to address them.

Others suggest that with a Democrat in the White House, Republicans
may be more prone to force votes on controversial issues, while members
of Mr. Clinton's party may believe their amendments would be less
likely to provoke a veto from a Democrat.

But most observers agree that Congress will not retreat from this
type of legislating.

"The trend is worrisome, and they don't seem able to control
themselves," said Bruce Hunter, a senior associate executive director
of the American Association of School Administrators. "This Congress
has been more willing than ever to be the county council, the mayor's
office, or the school board, and less willing to be the Congress."

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.